5.  The applicant, Mr Victor Saviţchi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1954. He worked as an inspector in the Făleşti County Economic Police Force. On 3 August 2000 he was arrested on a charge of taking a bribe of 4,000 United States dollars (USD) in exchange for a favour concerning a case he was dealing with.
6.  The arrest in flagrante delicto was filmed by two cameras from different angles. Both videos were included in the domestic criminal file and were sent to the Court by the Government.
7.  One of the videos shows a group of police officers wearing plain clothes enter a room, which looks like a small bar, where the applicant is drinking beer with the briber. At the sight of the police officers, the applicant dips his fingers into a mug of beer, after which he is immediately grabbed and restrained by four police officers. Since the applicant attempts to bend down, three police officers hold his hands behind his back while another one holds his head up. Subsequently, another police officer joins the other four. Another police officer approaches the applicant and checks the pockets of his trousers. The applicant is splashed with beer and water, apparently in an attempt to calm him down, and one of the police officers restraining him comments that he is attempting to bend down. Finally, he is forcibly cuffed and seated on a chair. After approximately four minutes of struggle, the applicant calms down. After approximately five minutes, one of the police officers announces to the others that he has stopped filming because the cassette has run out.
8.  The second video starts immediately after the police officers grab and restrain the applicant. A man holding a camera can be seen kicking the applicant in the region of his chest. It appears that the man kicking the applicant is the police officer who was filming the other video (see the preceding paragraph). Immediately after this scene the image changes to a wall; however, sounds resembling two blows are heard in the background. After approximately twenty seconds the same person kicks the applicant twice in the posterior. Another police officer approaches the applicant and does something to him; however, only his back can be seen. Later the applicant, who continues to struggle, is splashed with beer and water, apparently in an attempt to calm him down. One of the police officers restraining him comments that he is attempting to bend down. After being forcibly seated on a chair, the applicant calms down and a police officer examines his hands with a special lamp to detect the presence of a special dust with which the bribe money has apparently been treated. Subsequently, his pockets are examined and USD 4,000 is extracted from the pocket of his shirt. The money appears to have been marked with a special dust and every banknote bears the inscription “Bribe Savitchi 2000”. The applicant claims that the money is not his and that he has no idea how it got into his pocket. He argues that in that pocket he had documents and a pen which mysteriously appeared on the table.
9.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the General Prosecutor’s Office about his alleged ill-treatment by the policemen who arrested him on 3 August 2000.
10.  On 24 November 2000 the General Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen, on the ground that the applicant’s complaint was ill-founded. The decision dismissing the applicant’s complaint stated, inter alia, that several police officers who had participated in the applicant’s arrest had been questioned and they had denied the applicant’s submissions that he had been beaten up.
11.  On 17 May 2004 the applicant complained to the Râşcani District Court about the Prosecutor’s Office’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who had ill-treated him. In support of his complaint the applicant relied on the video of his arrest (see paragraph 8 above) and the findings in the judgment of the Bălţi Regional Court of 5 June 2001 (see paragraph 14 below).
12.  On 18 June 2004 the Râşcani District Court without having viewed the video, examined the case on its merits and, in a very brief decision, dismissed the complaint as ill-founded.
13.  The applicant was detained during the judicial proceedings between 4 August 2000 and 5 June 2001.
14.  On 5 June 2001 the Bălţi Regional Court acquitted the applicant. In its judgment it stated, inter alia, the following:
“Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that investigative measures can be taken only after criminal proceedings are formally instituted... The criminal proceedings were formally instituted in this case on 3 August 2000....
The accusation is based on a number of pieces of evidence which were obtained prior to that date, such as: the warrant for the installation of a recording device of 2 August 2000, the minutes of the marking of the money of 2 August 2000, a video of 2 August 2000, and some audio recordings...
...
According to Article 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the interception of telephone communications and other communications... of suspects... may be carried out in connection with criminal proceedings instituted in accordance with a decision of the authority conducting the investigation with the authorisation of the prosecutor.
In the present criminal proceedings the prosecution presented four audio cassettes and three micro audio cassettes; however, it appears from the materials of the case that the interception of the communications was not authorised by a prosecutor.
...
Having listened to the contents of the audio cassette HF-S 90, micro audio cassette Sony MC-60, TDK-60 and “Olimpus”, the court found that the interception and the recordings were carried out in breach of the provisions of the [Code of Criminal Procedure] and it is not clear who made the recordings, who was involved in the discussion and on which date the recordings were made.
The contents of the micro audio cassette Sony MC-60... are incomprehensible....
The above audio cassettes were sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office on 2 August 2000, one day before the formal institution of the criminal proceedings.
Since the above evidence was obtained in breach of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not admissible.
...
Having watched the video of the arrest, the examination of the scene of the crime and the body search, the court found the following: the film starts at 6.52 p.m.; Savitchi is surrounded by men who arrest him, his hands are twisted and he is kicked in the area of his liver. The image changes, but one can still hear the sound of blows. After that ... Savitchi is splashed with beer and water and seated on a chair with his hands cuffed behind his back... At 7.21 p.m. a wad of money is taken out of the left pocket of his shirt.
One can clearly see in the film that during the disorder created at the moment of arrest (at 6.53 p.m.), while Savitchi had his hands cuffed at his back and was surrounded by men, someone approached him, bent low and stretched his arms towards Savitchi’s chest.
These images cast doubt on the fact that Savitchi took the money, and his version of the facts, that the money was placed in his pocket, cannot be ruled out...
...
The fact that he was splashed with water and beer seem to support the allegation that he lost consciousness... and that the special dust appeared on his hands which had been behind his back.
Witnesses S. and B., who were questioned during the hearing, declared that when they entered the premises [the bar], they saw Savitchi, who had already been arrested, and that they did not see the moment of his arrest. Their testimonies are consistent with the video.
The fact that he [Savitchi] dipped his fingers in beer is not sufficient proof that he took the money...
The above evidence being equivocal, must be interpreted in favour of Savitchi.
The policemen..., who participated in the arrest as witnesses, stated that during the arrest Savitchi had resisted and therefore he had been cuffed, he had not lost consciousness, nobody had placed money in his pocket and nobody had beaten him up.
...
The declarations of the above witnesses [the police officers] are not consistent with the film and therefore the court doubts their truthfulness...
...
Witness L.M. [the briber] did not confirm the fact that Savitchi requested money from her... It was A.M. [the intermediary] who told her about the money. Moreover, there were no reasons for her to fear a control...
Having analysed all the circumstances of the case, the court comes to the conclusion that in the present case an entrapment was organised by the State organs, which is contrary to Article 95 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
15.  The Prosecutor’s Office lodged an appeal against this judgment. It did not deny the fact that some of the evidence had been obtained in breach of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
16.  In respect of the description of the video of the applicant’s arrest given by the first-instance court, the Prosecutor’s Office stated that there had indeed been disorder at the moment of the arrest because the applicant had resisted. He would not calm down and had tried to throw himself to the ground. It was, however, clearly visible that the money had been extracted from his pocket. The Prosecutor’s Office stressed that the first-instance court should have paid more attention to the testimonies of victims L.M. and A.M. (the bribers) and argued that the first-instance court had refused to question a witness who had been present at the moment of extraction of money from the applicant’s pocket. The first-instance court had failed to listen to all the audio recordings presented by the prosecution. It had also failed to question the technicians who had made the audio and video recordings and wrongly interpreted the testimonies of the policemen who had arrested the applicant.
17.  The Prosecutor’s Office asked for the judgment of 5 June 2001 to be quashed and the case re-examined by the first-instance court.
18.  On 30 August 2001 the Court of Appeal allowed the prosecutor’s appeal in its entirety, quashed the judgment of 5 June 2001 and ordered a re-trial of the case by the first-instance court. The court found numerous mistakes in the procedure before the first-instance court, such as, inter alia, the wrongful assessment of the evidence, the breach of the accused’s right to defence, the evidence (video and audio cassettes) was not given a proper examination, the prosecutor’s motions to hear a witness and several experts were dismissed, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the applicant had not taken the bribe and the conclusion about the entrapment was wrong.
19.  On 12 November 2002 the Bălţi Regional Court conducted a complete rehearing of the case, found the applicant guilty of bribe-taking and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The court based the conviction, inter alia, on the statements of A.M. and L.M., who declared that the applicant had asked them for a bribe, and of five policemen who arrested the applicant, who made more or less similar declarations about the alleged bribe-giving and arrest. Only one of the five policemen declared in an affidavit that force had been used on the applicant. The other policemen stated that no force had been used. All of the policemen declared that the applicant had dipped his fingers in a glass of beer in order to wash away traces of phosphorescent dust.
20.  The court also relied on the fact that the money had been found in the applicant’s pocket and that traces of phosphorescent dust had been detected on the palm of his right hand. The court also relied on two audio cassettes containing the recording of telephone conversations between the applicant and A.M. and L.M. of unknown date, and the video of the applicant’s arrest. The court stated the following:
“It appears from the audio cassette TDK MC-60 that Savitchi was dealing with the case of L.M. It also appears from their discussion that he requested from her the stated amount of money, in exchange for a positive report on the case. He insisted that she resign and move to another town, and promised that after the payment of the money the problem would be solved positively; if not, the money would be returned.
It appears from the discussions between Savitchi and A.M. that Savitchi was requesting USD 4,000. He was dealing with L.M.’s case and he had discovered irregularities concerning large amounts of money, and promised to help in exchange for a bribe, on condition that she resign and move to another town.
From the video it appears that the money in the amount of USD 4,000 had been marked in the presence of witnesses and had been given to A.M., who, on 3 August 2000 at approximately 6.30 p.m. ... had given it to Savitchi. When the police entered the bar, the bribe was already in the pocket of Savitchi’s shirt. Savitchi put his fingers in a glass of beer in order to wash away the traces of phosphorescent dust.”
21.  The court did not describe the other details of the video of the applicant’s arrest described in the judgment of 5 June 2001. It stated that the applicant’s submissions that he had not taken the money and that it had been put into his pocket were baseless. The court found that physical force had been used on him in order to overcome his resistance against the police and block his attempts to destroy the evidence.
22.  The applicant appealed against this judgment, arguing, inter alia, that:
“The court was influenced by the President’s [the President of the country] letter addressed to the President of the Superior Council of Magistrates, V.S....
...
...the court failed to give any consideration to the video of the applicant’s arrest in which one can clearly see that at 6.52 p.m. someone kicked him in the stomach after which the [camera] was immediately [directed elsewhere] by the person who was filming; however, the sound of beating could still be heard in the background. A minute later, at 6.53 p.m., an unknown person obscured the view with his body and stuck the money into the applicant’s pocket... Savitchi was splashed with water and beer in order to make him regain consciousness....
The court did not find out who beat the applicant up and why force had been necessary. Moreover, the court did not take into consideration that all the police witnesses except one denied the fact that Savitchi had been beaten up.... There was a plan to make Savitchi lose consciousness in order to be able to manipulate the evidence.
The court did not take into consideration the fact that some evidence, such as the report of the installing of telephone interception devices of 2 August 2000, the minutes of the marking of the money and the audio and video recordings of 2 August 2000, were obtained in breach of ... the Code of Criminal Procedure....
The recording of the telephone communication was carried out without the authorisation of a prosecutor... Moreover, even these items of evidence prove Savitchi’s innocence. ... No audio or video evidence proves that Savitchi demanded or received a bribe from L.M or A.M.”
23.  On 30 January 2003 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. In respect of his arguments it stated the following:
“It follows from the materials of the case that Savitchi extorted a bribe of USD 4,000 from A.M. who informed the police. After that, investigative measures were undertaken, recording devices were used and conversations between Savitchi and A.M. about the hand-over of the bribe and its amount were recorded. A video of the marking of the bribe money was made. In this manner, Savitchi was caught red-handed and there are no doubts about his guilt. The arguments in Savitchi’s appeal are devoid of any legal basis and the court considers them to be a method of defending the accused with the aim of avoiding penal responsibility for the offence committed. Accordingly it cannot be said that the bribery was [committed as a result of] entrapment.”
24.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Justice, raising points about the inadmissibility of all the evidence obtained before 3 August 2000 and other arguments similar to those raised in his appeal.
25.  On 10 July 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice, without holding a hearing and without giving any reasons, declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible.
26.  On 26 March 2004 the applicant wrote a letter to the Bălţi Court of Appeal, where his criminal file was held, in which he requested to be issued copies of some materials from the file. In reply he did not receive all the requested copies.
27.  He repeated his request and stressed that he needed a copy of the minutes of the hearings in the criminal proceedings against him and a copy of the video of his arrest of 3 August 2000, when he was caught red-handed, for the purpose of applying to an international court.
28.  By a letter of 3 May 2004 the President of the Bălţi Court of Appeal informed the applicant that under the Code of Criminal Procedure he did not have a right to receive copies of the minutes of the hearings; as to a copy of the video cassette, the applicant was informed that the court did not have the technical or economic means to make one.
29.  The applicant wrote in reply that he was prepared to bear all the expenses linked to the copying of the video cassette.
30.  On 30 June 2004 a Vice-President of the Bălţi Court of Appeal replied to the applicant that the court did not have the technical or economic means to make a copy of a video cassette.
31.  On unspecified dates the applicant complained to the Superior Council of Magistrates about the refusal of the Bălţi Court of Appeal to issue him with copies of the required materials from his criminal file. He relied, inter alia, on the provisions of the Law on Access to Information and on Article 10 of the Convention.
32.  On 2 July 2004 C.G., a Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Justice, informed the applicant that he had the right to have his lawyer see the minutes of the hearings and the video of his arrest, but not to request copies of them.
33.  On 15 July 2004 the applicant introduced an action with the Chişinău Court of Appeal against C.G.’s decision of 2 July 2004, asking for the decision to be quashed and that the Bălţi Court of Appeal be obliged to issue him copies of the transcripts of the hearings of his criminal case and of the video of his arrest. He based his action, inter alia, on the Law on Access to Information and on Article 10 of the Convention.
34.  On 27 July 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal informed the applicant that his action could not be examined, since C.G.’s letter was merely the opinion of a public official which did not infringe the applicant’s rights and therefore could not be challenged in the courts.
35.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice. However, on 20 September 2004 he was informed by the Supreme Court of Justice that the letter of the Chişinău Court of Appeal of 27 July 2004 was not a judicial decision and therefore could not be challenged by way of an appeal.